08 Oct Secret DOJ Memo on Awlaki Targeting, and NYT Public Editor on Policy-by-Leaks
I’m traveling and can’t stop to comment, but check out Charlie Savage’s New York Times story describing the secret DOJ memo, reportedly principally authored by David Barron and Marty Lederman, that provided the justification for putting Anwar Al-Awlaki on the targeting list in the first place. Crucial reading on the targeted killing and drone debate.
One thought, however. As Jack Goldsmith and Ben Wittes have argued at Lawfare, and I have argued here, although it is certainly helpful to have a summary in the press about the issues discussed in the secret memo and their resolution, the fact that it is merely leaked (quite apart from not making available the actual text) is a grave part of the problem here. If it can be shown to press people and written about at length, then it should be made available publicly, as official policy and part of the process of defending the policy. Leaks de-legitimize policy over the long run, and reforms to the accountability and oversight of “covert” actions that are not truly covert need to provide some mechanism for officially releasing information on their legal justifications. It’s good that this information is out there; it is bad that it was put out there through leaks.
Update: See also this very interesting opinion piece by the New York Times Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, in the Sunday Times, on the problems of reporting on government policy that proceeds, in essence, by leaks. As Brisbane says, this puts the Times in the awkward position of appearing to be manipulated to give the government’s statements in order to report the news. Brisbane was kind enough to quote me:
Kenneth Anderson, an American University law professor who told me he is a “centrist conservative” on national security issues, said he supports the use of drone technology for counterterrorism but cannot abide how the administration is handling the program publicly.
“One area in which I have been relentless in criticism of the Obama administration has been their refusal to say anything about it, and at the same time essentially conducting the foreign policy of the U.S. by leaked journalism,” he said. “I just don’t think that is acceptable.”
Has Glenn Greenwald called Marty Lederman a war criminal yet? For complicity in providing legal cover to civilian drone operators engaged in belligerency. Poor Marty, the John Yoo of the left.
[…] of the administration’s refusal to discuss the drones program in public. But Ken Anderson has beaten me to it over at Opinio Juris: As Jack Goldsmith and Ben Wittes have argued at Lawfare, and I have argued […]
Keep charging Ken.
[…] Memorandum, the discussion by others: : Washington Monthly, The Volokh Conspiracy, Lawfare, Opinio Juris, Prairie Weather, emptywheel, Mondoweiss, Business Insider, The Political Carnival and American […]
Poetic, if you want to see Greenwald’s response, see here:
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/singleton/
Something I am not following in all of this. I’m not quite seeing the difference in principle between speaking to a newspaper reporter and preparing an official document for release in an effort to explain the administration’s legal reasoning in the authorization of this action – if proper declassification has taken place in either case. I don’t know if that occurred in preparation for the discussion with Savage, but does anyone in the Anderson-Wittes-Goldsmith-Bobbitt axis know it hasn’t? Or are we simply concluding from the fact that the conversation took place on condition of anonymity that the document remains classified in its entirety? I’m unclear what exactly is at stake here. Aren’t interviews a staple part of communication between the government and the people? Even anonymous ones? Clearly, full transparency (within the restraints of legitimate need for confidentiality) is preferable on its own merits, but the argument here seems to go beyond that, into terms of some kind of unambiguous violation of clear, definite principle (besides the important one that illegal leaking remains illegal even if approved at high levels. I am stipulating that if this leaking was done in violation of ongoing non-declassification of this material, then that is… Read more »
Michael Drew: Good question. Charlie Savage has said that he didn’t name his sources because the disclosure was unauthorized – even though there was a wink-wink-nod-nod about the unauthorized disclosure.